Abstract
This paper examines determinants of networking by academics. Using information from a unique large survey of German researchers, the key contribution focuses on the active versus passive networking distinction. Is active networking by researchers a substitute or a complement to passive networking? Other contributions include examining the role of geographic factors in networking and whether research bottlenecks affect a researcher’s propensity to network. Are the determinants of European conference participation by German researchers different from conferences in rest of the world? Results show that some types of passive academic networking are complementary to active networking, while others are substitute. Further, we find differences in factors promoting participation in European conferences versus conferences in rest of the world. Finally, publishing bottlenecks as a group generally do not appear to be a hindrance to active networking. Implications for academic policy are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Perhaps the closest work is by Faria and Goel (2010) whose setup recognizes the active–passive networking distinction, before proceeding to theoretically examine the effects of passive networking.
While it is conceivable that patents also have simultaneity issues with networking, the lags associated with patent grants largely make them predetermined.
Given appropriate data, one could consider other dimensions of active networking such as subscription to specific internet blog groups.
Admittedly, our classification of determinants in various subgroups is somewhat arbitrary. However, in the absence of specific guidance from the literature, the choice of classifications, while not necessarily unique, seems logical and intuitive.
The difference between the number of responses received and observations used in the analysis can be attributed mainly to the following reason. Online surveys typically feature a large number of respondents who log into the system but only respond to one or a few questions before dropping out. Nevertheless, they are counted by the system as “response” although the resulting observation is not usable.
In an ideal case, a non-response analysis would be performed which required a control sample with information on scientists’ age, gender, discipline and institution. Unfortunately, such information is not available.
The effect of EU conferences is also negative and significant for life scientists in one case. Laband and Tollison (2000) provide interesting evidence on the differences across disciplines in assigning property rights from intellectual collaboration.
Core funding as a share of civilian government budget appropriations decreased from 26% in 1995 to 23% in 2007 (OECD 2010).
References
Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. (1997). Entrepreneurship, geographic spillovers, and university research: A spatial econometric approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Audretsch, D. B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K. L., Feldman, M., Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 155–203.
Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86, 630–640.
Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—an international comparison. Research Policy, 39, 822–834.
Autant-Bernard, C., Billand, P., Franchisse, D., & Massard, N. (2007). Spatial distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 495–519.
BMBF. (2008). Bundesbericht Forschung und Innovation. Berlin.
BMBF. (Eds.). (2009). Studie zur Deutschen Beteiligung am 6. Forschungsrahmenprogramm der Europäischen Union. Bonn/Berlin.
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.
Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694–707.
Cooper, C. E., Hamel, S. A., & Connaughton, S. L. Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator. Journal of Technology Transfer (in press).
Corley, E., & Gaughan, M. (2005). Scientists’ participation in university research centers: What are the gender differences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 371–381.
Coupé, T. (2004). What do we know about ourselves? On the economics of economics. Kyklos, 57, 197–216.
Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30, 699–714.
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.
Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38, 293–305.
Edler, J., Fier, H., & Grimpe, C. (2011). International scientist mobility and the locus of knowledge and technology transfer. Research Policy (forthcoming).
Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 947–993.
Faria, J. R., & Goel, R. K. (2010). Returns to networking in academia. Netnomics, 11, 103–117.
Feldman, M. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). The economics of science and technology: An overview of initiatives to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Boston: Kluwer.
Feller, I. (1990). Universities as engines of R&D-Based economic growth: They think they can. Research Policy, 19, 335–348.
Goel, R. K., & Grimpe, C. (2011). Are all academic entrepreneurs created alike? Evidence from Germany. Economics of Innovation and New Technology (forthcoming).
Goel, R. K., & Rich, D. P. (2005). Organization of markets for science and technology. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161, 1–17.
Goyal, S., van der Leij, M. J., & Moraga-Gonźalez, J. L. (2006). Economics: An emerging small world. Journal of Political Economy, 114, 403–412.
Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 637–650.
Hudson, J. (2007). Be known by the company you keep: Citations—quality or chance? Scientometrics, 71, 231–238.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–598.
Klamer, A., & Van Dalen, H. P. (2002). Attention and the art of scientific publishing. Journal of Economic Methodology, 9, 289–315.
Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2001). The institutional concentration of authors in top journals of economics during the last two decades. Economic Journal, 111, 405–421.
Koschatzky, K. (2002). Networking and knowledge transfer between research and industry in transition countries: Empirical evidence from the Slovenian innovation system. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 27–38.
Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 194–203.
Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632–662.
Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 640–655.
Medoff, M. H. (2003). Editorial favoritism in economics? Southern Economic Journal, 70, 425–434.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
OECD. (2010). Main science and technology indicators. Paris.
Rosa, P., & Dawson, A. (2006). Gender and the commercialization of university science: Academic founders of spinout companies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18, 341–366.
Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1199–1235.
Taylor, S. W., Fender, B. F., & Burke, K. G. (2006). Unravelling the academic productivity of economists: The opportunity costs of teaching and service. Southern Economic Journal, 72, 846–859.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 343–353.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2007). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT press.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate comments by two referees and the editor, Al Link.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goel, R.K., Grimpe, C. Active versus passive academic networking: evidence from micro-level data. J Technol Transf 38, 116–134 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9236-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9236-5